Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s new emphasis on economic diplomacy is not new. It is old — the logical outcome of a process that began at least 45 years ago under Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau.

“All diplomatic assets will be marshalled on behalf of the private sector,” Trade Minister Ed Fast announced last week as he unveiled what he called the Conservative government’s global markets doctrine.

Critics chided the Conservatives for repudiating Canada’s traditional, helpful role in the world. New Democratic foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar called the new doctrine overly narrow. So did former Liberal external affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy.

But the critics failed to address two important elements of the plan.

First, it is not as overarching as it might seem. The fact that it was announced not by Foreign Minister John Baird but by Fast, one of four junior ministers in his department, is significant.

What’s more, Fast was careful to point out that the commercial interests of Canadian business are not necessarily the main determinants of Ottawa’s approach to the world. Rather they are “one of our prime policy objectives.”

That non-economic factors still come to play in foreign affairs was underlined Sunday when Harper reaffirmed his rock-hard support of Israel at a gala put on by the Jewish National Fund.

There may be good political reasons for Harper’s hewing to Israel. But there are few economic ones. The nation of eight million buys less than one-tenth of one per cent of Canadian exports.

Indeed, if Harper were truly adhering to the doctrine annunciated by Fast he would downplay Israel and focus instead on Middle Eastern nations that offer greater opportunities for Canadian oil mining and interests — including Israel’s arch-enemy Iran.

Instead, Canada denounces Iran, even as the U.S. and other Western countries move in the opposite direction.

Call this what you will, but it is hardly economic diplomacy.

The second unappreciated element of Harper’s new approach is that he did not invent it. In 1968, Pierre Trudeau campaigned for prime minister in part on a promise to make Canada’s foreign policy better reflect domestic needs.

In a subtle dig at his predecessor, Nobel laureate Lester Pearson, Trudeau said that it was no longer enough for Canada to operate as a helpful fixer in the world. Rather, he said, foreign policy had to serve Canadian interests.

Like Harper, Trudeau saw many of these interests as economic. Thus, under his Liberal government, Canada began to pay more attention to Latin America, the Pacific Rim and Europe.

Even Harper’s insistence today on diversifying markets away from the U.S. echoes a strategy that, under Trudeau, was called the third option.

So too the bureaucratic integration of Canada’s trade and foreign affairs departments began under Trudeau, as part of what the Liberal government called its effort “to aggressively pursue international export markets.”

Then, as now, part of that effort was aimed at bettering relations with nations that at the time were called developing countries. Today, they are labelled emerging markets.

Economics didn’t explain all, or at times even much, of Trudeau’s foreign policy. He famously paid little attention to commercial relations with the U.S., Canada’s main trading partner. In fact, he delighted in tweaking Washington by befriending Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

But Harper too has broken ranks with the U.S. — most recently over Iran. He has done so even though, in economic terms, it would make more sense for him to candy up to Washington.

None of this means that Harper’s approach to the world is identical to Trudeau’s. Trudeau paid more attention to the divide between wealthy and poor nations. Harper puts more stock in NATO.

But the Conservative government’s discovery that economic self-interest matters in foreign relations is hardly new. Crass perhaps. But not new.

Thomas Walkom's column appears Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.